Walmart pulling the plug on its MP3 store, but not its DRM servers

Walmart's MP3 store—yes, that exists—is shutting down, the company has …

Walmart is pulling the plug on its MP3 downloads store, but it will continue to support DRMed tracks that it sold before the store went DRM-free. The news comes via a leaked memo to Digital Music News—later confirmed by a Walmart representative—which told music licensing partners that the store would close on August 28, 2011.

"After eight years in business, the Walmart Music Downloads Store located at mp3.walmart.com will close on August 28, 2011. All content in the Store will be disabled and no longer available for download from the store," reads the memo. The also company reassured its partners that the sale of physical media through Walmart would be unaffected.

Walmart's music store started out as a DRMed venture in 2004, but went DRM-free in late 2007 (as it was the fashion at the time). Though Walmart was one of the first major names to get into selling DRM-free music, it never really caught on—Apple soon became the number one music retailer in the world, and Amazon has managed to push its way to number two thanks in part to its own MP3 music store. Both Amazon and iTunes offer a better user experience too, with software for multiple platforms and a large built-in user base. Let's face it: for mainstream music, why would anyone choose Walmart over the competition when it comes to music downloads?

Alas, Walmart's memo to its partners doesn't go into detail as to why the company decided to shut down, but it seems obvious that Walmart just couldn't compete without something more to offer. The company did say, however, that DRMed music files that were purchased before the store went DRM-free would continue to function even after the MP3 store shut-down. The company had attempted to kill its DRM servers in 2008—leaving its previous customers out in the cold if they were to need re-authorization—but later decided to leave the DRM servers online after receiving bad customer feedback.

I never buy CDs at wal-mart because they are censored and don't warn you on the packaging. I also don't buy into DRM for music. I just buy my CDs and burn them to my ps3, mp3 player and my pc. that way I own my music and if the cd is destroyed I can burn backups off my hard drive. No need to be dependent on some dumb service that may not exist a few years later. Something I already have to deal with just to run one of my all time favorite pc games 'gmod on steam'.

Yet another reason not to purchase DRM'd music. If the service, or just the servers for that matter, go down then you lose your money and time collecting the music. What if the server simply went down and they didn't have all your licenses backed up properly?

Wouldn't it just make sense to give those customers the DRM free versions of those tracks and then just kill their servers? Just seems pointless and costly to be running DRM servers when they could just be given the DRM free tracks.

Likely Walmart doesn't have the agreements with the labels to do this.

Walmart probably doesn't have the incentive to try and renegotiate the agreements (why spend more money on something you're closing down?) and the labels probably see it as an opportunity to sell the same track again (through another service: Amazon, iTunes, etc) to the unfortunate consumer who would no longer access their original purchase.

Wouldn't it just make sense to give those customers the DRM free versions of those tracks and then just kill their servers? Just seems pointless and costly to be running DRM servers when they could just be given the DRM free tracks.

Walmart tried to do that not too long after they started selling DRM-free music. They offered everyone who had purchased DRM-ed music from them vouchers to Rhapsody.com, while telling them their DRM servers would be going away soon. Walmart probably couldn't give people vouchers to their own store because of the music labels requirement of keeping strict counts of each download and paying them (the labels) per song downloaded. I would image they cut a deal with Rhapsody that was probably half of what they would have had to pay the labels otherwise.

Kill the servers. 98% of anyone that bought DRMed music from Walmart wouldn't know why their music quit working anyway. Hell, the computers that had the music on them probably went to virus infection heaven years ago.

"Let's face it: for mainstream music, why would anyone choose Walmart over the competition when it comes to music downloads?"

Because their prices are slightly lower. Or because they offer a discount if you buy an album after having previously bought one or more tracks from it. Or just because you already have a Walmart gift card. Or heck, maybe you are the sort that actually prefers buying from a store with no "explicit" music on it.

"Let's face it: for mainstream music, why would anyone choose Walmart over the competition when it comes to music downloads?"

Because their prices are slightly lower. Or because they offer a discount if you buy an album after having previously bought one or more tracks from it. Or just because you already have a Walmart gift card. Or heck, maybe you are the sort that actually prefers buying from a store with no "explicit" music on it.

I do not know anyone Who would ever buy censored CDs. Then again most people besides me 'I buy the CDs and burn them to my pc' either go to best buy/specialized music store or will most likely pirate them anyway. I prefer owning the original, uncensored CD complete with the disk, artwork and the crappy jewel case.

Just further evidence of the problems with DRM. And I'm sure Walmart would give the customer free versions, but the RIAA probably would sue them. After all, we don't own anything, some greedy label does.

Hmm, maybe I should start buying CDs from Wal-mart. Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it? Yeah, so I have sensitive ears to that kind of thing. (But to each, their own... I'm just giving a counterpoint.)

I'm not certain how the DRM works on these tracks... does it need a specific player application in order to decode them? If so, why not release an update to that software that decodes and resaves the files without DRM? Walmart has a license for un-DRM music since they've been selling MP3s for years.

Hmm, maybe I should start buying CDs from Wal-mart. Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it? Yeah, so I have sensitive ears to that kind of thing. (But to each, their own... I'm just giving a counterpoint.)

Totally agree. And now if only I could go to an art museum that would guarantee me that all the boobies are tastefully painted over to protect my sensitive eyes too.

"Let's face it: for mainstream music, why would anyone choose Walmart over the competition when it comes to music downloads?"

Because their prices are slightly lower. Or because they offer a discount if you buy an album after having previously bought one or more tracks from it. Or just because you already have a Walmart gift card. Or heck, maybe you are the sort that actually prefers buying from a store with no "explicit" music on it.

Well, if you wanted the lower quality MP3's for a few cents less then yea, it's worth it to some people. Like most Walmart products, their quality sucked compared to the competition. There's a difference between inexpensive and cheap and all of Walmarts merchandise, including their music, is cheap.

Hmm, maybe I should start buying CDs from Wal-mart. Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it? Yeah, so I have sensitive ears to that kind of thing. (But to each, their own... I'm just giving a counterpoint.)

If you want music without certain lyrics, don't buy the latest gangster rap. It isn't the language that's a problem, it's altering the music that the artist originally created. Have you ever seen the Mad TV sketch about The Sopranos airing on Pax TV? Yeah, that's Wal-Mart music.

Hmm, maybe I should start buying CDs from Wal-mart. Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it? Yeah, so I have sensitive ears to that kind of thing. (But to each, their own... I'm just giving a counterpoint.)

Totally agree. And now if only I could go to an art museum that would guarantee me that all the boobies are tastefully painted over to protect my sensitive eyes too.

Art is supposed to provoke.

Adding obscenities to music doesn't automatically by its inclusion tip the song into the realm of "art".

I'm not certain how the DRM works on these tracks... does it need a specific player application in order to decode them? If so, why not release an update to that software that decodes and resaves the files without DRM? Walmart has a license for un-DRM music since they've been selling MP3s for years.

As has been noted, they may not have licenses for non-DRM versions of all (or any) of the material that they originally sold with DRM. Stripping the DRM in a client-side app is no doubt the same as selling it without DRM in the first place, legally, so that doesn't get them anywhere, plus there would be app development and distribution costs. I kinda like the idea, but it's probably a losing proposition for them.

As for the DRM servers, we should at least be thankful that they seem to have learned a lesson there, and have even retained it. I also wonder if they might have some as yet unannounced plans for those servers, in some other area where DRM is required, or have plans to repurpose them. But even leaving them up as DRM servers and shoe-horning in other services later might be possible - after all, there can't really be that much load on those machines any more, and the load will simply diminish as time passes. (Someone else noted that many of the originally licensed machines have probably been wiped, rebuilt, or trashed - so, unless they had some sort of free "I need to renew/re-download my license" provisions in place, then those machines are no longing hitting their DRM servers, and that attrition will continue.) There are almost always things that you can do behind the scenes with "spare" servers, even outdated ones - to a point.

Hmm, maybe I should start buying CDs from Wal-mart. Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it? Yeah, so I have sensitive ears to that kind of thing. (But to each, their own... I'm just giving a counterpoint.)

Totally agree. And now if only I could go to an art museum that would guarantee me that all the boobies are tastefully painted over to protect my sensitive eyes too.

Art is supposed to provoke.

Adding obscenities to music doesn't automatically by its inclusion tip the song into the realm of "art".

Never said it did, but nor does it exclude it. But you can argue with a strawman if that's your thing.If you don't like the art or you don't value the art, then don't consume it. If you don't like the exposed nipple in Botticelli's Birth of Venus don't look at it. Don't take a sharpie and color in a pastie for her.Editing somebody else's art to suit your sensibilities is an act of vandalism.

Hmm, maybe I should start buying CDs from Wal-mart. Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it? Yeah, so I have sensitive ears to that kind of thing. (But to each, their own... I'm just giving a counterpoint.)

Totally agree. And now if only I could go to an art museum that would guarantee me that all the boobies are tastefully painted over to protect my sensitive eyes too.

Art is supposed to provoke.

Adding obscenities to music doesn't automatically by its inclusion tip the song into the realm of "art".

Never said it did, but nor does it exclude it. But you can argue with a strawman if that's your thing.If you don't like the art or you don't value the art, then don't consume it. If you don't like the exposed nipple in Botticelli's Birth of Venus don't look at it. Don't take a sharpie and color in a pastie for her.Editing somebody else's art to suit your sensibilities is an act of vandalism.

Come on you have to admit that censored music with all the swearing and cursing removed it damn hilarious. Listen to the radio edit of Bizkit's "Rollin'", and entire verse is censored and you end up with about 2 words left and what can only be described as sounding like the microphone keeps cutting in and out, hilarious!

Come on you have to admit that censored music with all the swearing and cursing removed it damn hilarious. Listen to the radio edit of Bizkit's "Rollin'", and entire verse is censored and you end up with about 2 words left and what can only be described as sounding like the microphone keeps cutting in and out, hilarious!

Let's not forget Cee Lo Green's edited version of "f--k you", into practically an entirely re-worded song, "forget you". Sometimes they make the artist completely re-do their creation to keep it 'appropriate'.

Listen to the commentary for 'Repo Man'. Alex Cox describes how much fun they had coming up with profanity substitutions for the television version, such as "Flip you, melon-farmer!" So in a sense that might be considered yet another form of art, albeit dependent upon the existence of the original to provide any added value.

But in general, if you don't like what the artist originally had to say, then don't listen to it or look at it at all. (In some cases the artist may offer a toned-down version on their own volition, but if it was instead coerced by the producer or label then that doesn't count.)

Come on you have to admit that censored music with all the swearing and cursing removed it damn hilarious. Listen to the radio edit of Bizkit's "Rollin'", and entire verse is censored and you end up with about 2 words left and what can only be described as sounding like the microphone keeps cutting in and out, hilarious!

Let's not forget Cee Lo Green's edited version of "f--k you", into practically an entirely re-worded song, "forget you". Sometimes they make the artist completely re-do their creation to keep it 'appropriate'.

Lately, the radio here's been airing it with the phrase "Eff you" instead. Still a bowdlerization, but it's less of a travesty to my ears than "forget you".

Hmm, maybe I should start buying CDs from Wal-mart. Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it? Yeah, so I have sensitive ears to that kind of thing. (But to each, their own... I'm just giving a counterpoint.)

Totally agree. And now if only I could go to an art museum that would guarantee me that all the boobies are tastefully painted over to protect my sensitive eyes too.

Art is supposed to provoke.

Adding obscenities to music doesn't automatically by its inclusion tip the song into the realm of "art".

Never said it did, but nor does it exclude it. But you can argue with a strawman if that's your thing.If you don't like the art or you don't value the art, then don't consume it. If you don't like the exposed nipple in Botticelli's Birth of Venus don't look at it. Don't take a sharpie and color in a pastie for her.Editing somebody else's art to suit your sensibilities is an act of vandalism.

Come on you have to admit that censored music with all the swearing and cursing removed it damn hilarious. Listen to the radio edit of Bizkit's "Rollin'", and entire verse is censored and you end up with about 2 words left and what can only be described as sounding like the microphone keeps cutting in and out, hilarious!

Censored music is fine on the radio for free but when you walk into a wal-mart there is no type if warning that the music is censored. that is a plain dirty move. I guess some people don't get that. I made the mistake of buying a cd from there before I found out for myself they're censored. You pratically have to get into a verbal fight to get a refund.

Hmm, maybe I should start buying CDs from Wal-mart. Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it? Yeah, so I have sensitive ears to that kind of thing. (But to each, their own... I'm just giving a counterpoint.)

I like how you have sensitive ears to certain vulgarities and yet you still want to listen to that genre of music. I stay away from rap, not because of the single word vulgarities, but because most songs are about one big vulgarity. Listening to eminem rap about killing a prostitute just doesnt appeal to me even if you take out all the swear words.

If you dont like a song only because the artist said a naughty word...I thikn you are missing the point of art. Its like covering your eyes when you look at a 17th century painting of a war scene not because you dont like war, but because the artist drew a pool of blood around a dead soldier.

Hmm, maybe I should start buying CDs from Wal-mart. Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it? Yeah, so I have sensitive ears to that kind of thing. (But to each, their own... I'm just giving a counterpoint.)

Does it enhance? Not if you're adding profanity for shock value. But neither does removing profanity make a nasty message clean. There was an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit! where Penn eloquintly demonstrated how you can say the nastiest, most horrific things without saying a single "profane" word, though the message was still unpleaseant.

I have no idea why you'd want to listen to that sort of thing whilst editing out the potty-mouth.

coreycubed wrote:

Adding obscenities to music doesn't automatically by its inclusion tip the song into the realm of "art".

They weren't talking about adding obscenities, they were talking about editing or censoring obscenities. There's a difference. The music I listen to contains profanity, but the songs wouldn't make any sense without them.

Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it?

I like how you have sensitive ears to certain vulgarities and yet you still want to listen to that genre of music. I stay away from rap, not because of the single word vulgarities, but because most songs are about one big vulgarity. Listening to eminem rap about killing a prostitute just doesnt appeal to me even if you take out all the swear words.

If you dont like a song only because the artist said a naughty word...I thikn you are missing the point of art. Its like covering your eyes when you look at a 17th century painting of a war scene not because you dont like war, but because the artist drew a pool of blood around a dead soldier.

Hmm, maybe I should start buying CDs from Wal-mart. Really, does having the F, MF, S, and other unintelligent vulgarities in songs really enhance it? Yeah, so I have sensitive ears to that kind of thing. (But to each, their own... I'm just giving a counterpoint.)

If you want music without certain lyrics, don't buy the latest gangster rap. It isn't the language that's a problem, it's altering the music that the artist originally created.

Oh for crying out loud --- an artist's precious feelings about the perfection of their creation are not the ONLY thing in the world that matters.Or are you one of those people that is upset about the selling of digital music because people listen to only the tracks they like and don't get the "full experience", or they don't get to see the album art in its full,artist-approved LP-size.

Pretty much every time one listens to music, one is not listening to exactly what "the artist originally created" --- on re-orders tracks, skips over that boring three minutes of guitar at the end, hears the song mixed in with traffic noise, hears the song in the background of a movie, etc etc.

Totally agree. And now if only I could go to an art museum that would guarantee me that all the boobies are tastefully painted over to protect my sensitive eyes too.

Art is supposed to provoke.

I think this analogy is somewhat off. Art museums = older art = classical music. There are naughty words (or what used to be naughty words) and all kinds of implications/innuendo in operas. I've never heard of anyone "cleaning them up".

IMHO, a more appropriate analogy for things like gangsta rap is the kind of thing you'd find in an NC-17 movie. IIRC, those do get edited for TV at times.. And very few of them are considered similar to the kind of "art" you'd find in an art museum.

If you want music without certain lyrics, don't buy the latest gangster rap.

It's not just ganster rap, and I think it's more the delivery that makes something offensive.

For example, there's an Australian band called Regurgitator. Back in the mid-90's they released a song called "Blubber Boy" about an eskimo woman that makes a husband out of blubber, and brings him to life by having sex with him. She had to keep having sex with him to keep him alive and stop him from melting. It contained lines like "Rub me on your cunt, I'll come back again."

This was about the same time Dennis Leary's "Asshole" was being censored and edited on TV and radio (they only edited out the word "fuck"), yet at any time of the day or night Blubber Boy could be played unedited on TV or radio. The Blubber Boy video had nothing offensive in it, in fact, it was very pantomimish, with a couple of people dressed up in eskimo outfits and one guy in a polar bear suit.

Delivery is everything. People that get hung up over specific words and ignore what's being said are wankers. It has nothing to do with having "sensitive ears". But yeah, I get your point, if Machtyn is delicate enough to be offended by a few words, what's he doing listening to that sort of stuff in the first place?